I thought I'd mentioned this before, but perhaps not. The whole idea of framing fits in very well with a newish theory in neuroscience called The Predictive Brain. I am by no means qualified to describe it, but it seems basically to argue that our brain doesn't actually perceive everything the electrical impulses coming from the senses transmit to it. It fills in the gaps by interpolating what you probably did just perceive on either side of the gap or what you EXPECTED to see based on your previous encounters with the particular impulse. I think it is kind of like the way pixels get interpolated in certain things relating to photography (which I don't really understand, either).
The "frames" you are discussing seem to be arguably part of the mechanism that makes this work.
I just had a personal experience of this. I am retired from 30 years in the surety industry, so naturally I have been following the saga of the trump bond in the James case. As soon as I could get a copy from the court docket I downloaded the bond, read it multiple times, made arguments about the need of the surety to be admitted, criticized the "excess coverage" argument, noted that the power of attorney was dated after the original bond, so had obviously been left out of the first submission--a major, critical no-no for any surety.
But it wasn't till Monday when Mary Trump broke the news that the bond did not bind the surety at all did I realize this defect. I am so used to the usual statement of "joint and several liability" in a bond that I just EXPECTED it to be there. My "frame" told me it had to be there. I simply couldn't SEE that it wasn't there until it was brought to my attention.
In defense of myself, I HAD noted that the bond form was "weird" in being filled with all sorts of excess verbiage that appeal bonds don't need. But I hadn't been able to see HOW weird.
This may not mean much to those who haven't been tuned into the Trump Bond issue. But believe me, it taught me a lesson. Don't assume anything about what you think is familiar and routine.
There are systems we take for granted and one of them involves criminal justice. Crimes are committed jail sentences are handed out. But wait. We aren’t wild animals, and how draconian it is to put people in cages.
There is a fundamental distinction among criminals. Some are violent people who will hurt others and must be kept away from civilized society. But, white collar criminals or people who commit crimes of passion, whose hurting days are over, are something else, yet cages it is for people who are not going to harm anyone else. Instead of incarcerating those people, given the expense even just to be practical, we could re-do the punishment to make it lives of service to humanity without financial gain for the term of what would have been a prison sentence. Get them making productive contributions. Some people who financially hurt many people are very clever and could be of benefit to the world if all they got to do was serve the whole. Subjecting harmless people to years of torture for them and their families deserves rethinking. We could be an example to the world, going beyond the best there is, in Norway (https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/this-could-be-a-game-changer), to do something revolutionary. The whole culture would get lessons if we treated criminals humanely.
I would really like to see experts like Dr. Lee and George Lakoff have a conversation for the public about tffg’s “disorganized speech”. Is it word salad versus what Lakoff tells us is purposely crafted speech intended to influence. (Never forget the book of Hitler’s speeches is probably the only book he ever kept at his bedside)
If it is disorganized speech then it’s a blatant and more objectively measured symptom of his unfitness for POTUS.
“Disorganized speech is when someone’s speech is filled with run-on sentences, jumbled or incoherent words, words or concepts that do not go together, or awkward phrasing. When this happens, the person speaking is often difficult to follow or understand. There are many reasons someone may have disorganized speech, including mental illness, substance use, or brain injury.” *
However, as Lakoff reports here: “The point here is that Trump’s use of language is anything but “word salad.” His words and his use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.
Trump never overtly used the word “assassinate.” He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, “The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote.”
He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.
Believe me! Some people say…
People in the media have asked me about Trump’s use of “Believe me!” and “Many people say” followed by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying. Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.
If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies.” **
Lakoff’s explanation would be cause for the most concern as that lays bare the true evil in the man to manipulate and con the world to his satisfaction.
I would throw a note of caution to any thinking along this line that human behavior is complicated and though we are advancing in our understanding, there is a good chance that tffg’s disorganized speech is likely word salad in one moment and premeditated and purposeful influence in another. One does not preclude the other.
Still can we have the experts discuss and attempt to sort this out?? Please??
I thought I'd mentioned this before, but perhaps not. The whole idea of framing fits in very well with a newish theory in neuroscience called The Predictive Brain. I am by no means qualified to describe it, but it seems basically to argue that our brain doesn't actually perceive everything the electrical impulses coming from the senses transmit to it. It fills in the gaps by interpolating what you probably did just perceive on either side of the gap or what you EXPECTED to see based on your previous encounters with the particular impulse. I think it is kind of like the way pixels get interpolated in certain things relating to photography (which I don't really understand, either).
The "frames" you are discussing seem to be arguably part of the mechanism that makes this work.
I just had a personal experience of this. I am retired from 30 years in the surety industry, so naturally I have been following the saga of the trump bond in the James case. As soon as I could get a copy from the court docket I downloaded the bond, read it multiple times, made arguments about the need of the surety to be admitted, criticized the "excess coverage" argument, noted that the power of attorney was dated after the original bond, so had obviously been left out of the first submission--a major, critical no-no for any surety.
But it wasn't till Monday when Mary Trump broke the news that the bond did not bind the surety at all did I realize this defect. I am so used to the usual statement of "joint and several liability" in a bond that I just EXPECTED it to be there. My "frame" told me it had to be there. I simply couldn't SEE that it wasn't there until it was brought to my attention.
In defense of myself, I HAD noted that the bond form was "weird" in being filled with all sorts of excess verbiage that appeal bonds don't need. But I hadn't been able to see HOW weird.
This may not mean much to those who haven't been tuned into the Trump Bond issue. But believe me, it taught me a lesson. Don't assume anything about what you think is familiar and routine.
“Take, for example, the framing of “tax relief.” This implies that taxes are an affliction…”
This and other egregious distortions (remember “death tax?”) can be laid squarely at the feet of Frank Luntz
There are systems we take for granted and one of them involves criminal justice. Crimes are committed jail sentences are handed out. But wait. We aren’t wild animals, and how draconian it is to put people in cages.
There is a fundamental distinction among criminals. Some are violent people who will hurt others and must be kept away from civilized society. But, white collar criminals or people who commit crimes of passion, whose hurting days are over, are something else, yet cages it is for people who are not going to harm anyone else. Instead of incarcerating those people, given the expense even just to be practical, we could re-do the punishment to make it lives of service to humanity without financial gain for the term of what would have been a prison sentence. Get them making productive contributions. Some people who financially hurt many people are very clever and could be of benefit to the world if all they got to do was serve the whole. Subjecting harmless people to years of torture for them and their families deserves rethinking. We could be an example to the world, going beyond the best there is, in Norway (https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/this-could-be-a-game-changer), to do something revolutionary. The whole culture would get lessons if we treated criminals humanely.
I would really like to see experts like Dr. Lee and George Lakoff have a conversation for the public about tffg’s “disorganized speech”. Is it word salad versus what Lakoff tells us is purposely crafted speech intended to influence. (Never forget the book of Hitler’s speeches is probably the only book he ever kept at his bedside)
If it is disorganized speech then it’s a blatant and more objectively measured symptom of his unfitness for POTUS.
“Disorganized speech is when someone’s speech is filled with run-on sentences, jumbled or incoherent words, words or concepts that do not go together, or awkward phrasing. When this happens, the person speaking is often difficult to follow or understand. There are many reasons someone may have disorganized speech, including mental illness, substance use, or brain injury.” *
However, as Lakoff reports here: “The point here is that Trump’s use of language is anything but “word salad.” His words and his use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.
Trump never overtly used the word “assassinate.” He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, “The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote.”
He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.
Believe me! Some people say…
People in the media have asked me about Trump’s use of “Believe me!” and “Many people say” followed by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying. Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.
If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies.” **
Lakoff’s explanation would be cause for the most concern as that lays bare the true evil in the man to manipulate and con the world to his satisfaction.
*choosingtherapy.com/disorganized-speech
**news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/24/following-…
I would throw a note of caution to any thinking along this line that human behavior is complicated and though we are advancing in our understanding, there is a good chance that tffg’s disorganized speech is likely word salad in one moment and premeditated and purposeful influence in another. One does not preclude the other.
Still can we have the experts discuss and attempt to sort this out?? Please??